Posted on 02/05/2010 8:10:31 PM PST by Bigtigermike
SALINA — Before a crowd of 6,000 cheering fans, Sarah Palin received rock star treatment Friday night in Salina.
The former vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor, drew a sell-out crowd to the Bicentennial Center for the Salina Area Chamber of Commerce annual meeting — an event that routinely draws big names to Salina. Past speakers have included Colin Powell, George H.W. Bush, Bob Costas, Margaret Thatcher and Cal Ripkin Jr.
"We've had great speakers in the past," said Todd Davidson, of the Chamber. "No one has generated this amount of interest — even President George H.W. Bush, who came here when he was a sitting president, did not drive this kind of a response."
Even Palin couldn't ignore the excitement her appearance generated. Back stage, she said, a chamber member told her, " 'Man, this is like a Van Halen concert.' I said, 'Man, I wish.' "
In her speech, Palin sounded off on national security, government bailouts and limited government ideals. And she offered lots of praise for the hometown crowd.
"In a time when folks so fear that much is going wrong, your town is an example of how to get it right and how to soar," said Palin, who was joined in Salina by her daughter, Piper. "Shoot, your state's motto even has it right: to the stars through difficulties."
Palin began by relating her experiences as a city councilwoman and mayor in Wasilla, Alaska. What worked there, she said, was cutting taxes, focusing on a few core services and spending responsibly. As governor, she said she learned to take tough stances.
"I'd have to butt heads with my own party officials and the other party, of course too, and the media," said Palin, who didn't meet with reporters on her trip to Salina. "Some things never change. It wasn't always the easy path, but it was the right path."
Telling the crowd she was going to "call is like I see it," she said Washington, D.C., politicians need to "back off." While Americans have lost jobs and learned to live with less, she charged that government has become more bloated.
"Over the past year, Washington has replaced private irresponsibility with public irresponsibility," she said.
The country, she said, needs health reform "not backroom deals." She suggested measures like allowing insurance purchases across state lines and tort reform.
Also, she said the country needs to pursue "all of the above approach to energy." She said increased drilling for oil must be pursued.
"Drill here and drill now and tap our own plentiful energy supplies," she said.
The Obama administration, she said, has lost its way on foreign policy. She said people wonder if the United States is still a "beacon of hope" for freedom.
"We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies and recognizes the true nature of these threats that we are facing," Palin said.
In the end, her speech brought the crowd to its feet.
Earlier in the night, Verlene and Joyce Jackson, of Chapman, said they hope to see Palin as president someday and like that she hasn't "always been in that ivory tower."
"She has a fresh outlook," Verlene Jackson said. "She speaks for us. She's a down home girl. I feel like personally, I think she would do a good job representing us."
DeVee Smalley drove in from Superior, Neb., to join her two daughters for Palin's speech.
"I think she is somebody who is trying to reach out to the heartland of America," Smalley said.
Palin will be back in Kansas May 2 to speak in Wichita at a fundraiser for a Christian school.
Seems FdeC is a "reactionary", and you, Finny are more than halfway there. Good!!
So, when HW Bush bit his tongue rather than treating Couric with the disdain a woman could accetibly dished out when Couric chided this WWII warrior for his stances on tobacco, he was being a "cowed, polite weakling"?
Men are the sole protectors of women. ANY and EVERY freedom we females have in society, including the ability move about freely and unmolested, is due solely to the good graces of men because they hold so dearly, so closely, so faithfully, to the "gentleman" ethic. It is possibly the most profound difference between Muslim men -- cowards -- and non-Muslim men, for example.
Another truth: There is nothing new under the sun. Boys grown into cowed, polite wealings because of domineering women is a phenomenon as old as the hills; so is gentlemanly behavior, thank God. Unpolite behavior towards a woman, in ANY civilized society at ANY time in history, is the mark of a coward. Women have used that to their advantage since the dawn of Civilization.
Whether or not a woman decides to agree with you about child rearing and her appropriate behavior in her particular circumstances as opposed to what you think it should be, is entirely separate from the age-old problem of domineering women creating a caste of men who are impotent metrosexuals.
In my humble opinion, no-fault divorce and a family law court system that willfully denies men the authority to be active fathers in their children's lives should the mothers of those children chose to divorce him, is the current cause of everything you bitch about and cattily throw on your vague idea of "Feminsta," which is apparently anyone who thinks that it's Palin and any other woman's own personal business to decide whether or not she wants to be a stay-at-home mom or not. The Feminista is a sympton, not a cause.
As for the Muslim men comment, I need to expand -- Muslim men who make their women wear burkhas and be covered up all the time, Muslim men who "honor kill" females at the slightest provocation, Muslim men who divest themselves of blame for indulging their own lust if a woman is anything but fully covered in public -- those are cowards, and that is what happens to women when the males around them fail to be men.
Society's malaise today was not caused by, nor will it be cured by, women with kids who also choose to have careers. Kids do best when their parents bond, follow their dreams despite what you or Dr. Laura or any other person would presume to criticize, and bring the kids along for the ride.
If Dr. Laura was dispensing advice in the early 1800s, she'd tell many a pioneer family, the ones who Tamed the West and helped forge this great nation, that they were being irresponsible and horrible to follow their dreams; she'd tell them to stay safe and sound in Boston or England, rather than "put the children at risk." And our country would be several generations ahead of where it is now in terms of cowed, effeminate men.
How did I miss this when it came out??
Thank you so much for the link. Now posted on my FB wall for all my friends (some are liberals) to see! :-)
Thankyou molbydenum you understood the deeper issue that I was trying to bring forth- the abdication of the men - and the destruction of the culture is the proof -
Palin’s position is well articulated in this video of her on Larry King, Barely Alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rSNGnYvF8k
No my children struggle and my youngest has a serious bone marrow disease - maybe that is why I worry about this - from the other side — I am in tune and couldn’t be with other serious responsibilites.
You agree that we (as a country) suffer malaise. What I am trying to say is that women who have been gung ho feministas thru the years have been systematically neutering boys & men in our society. One major political achievement in the '70s was Affirmative Action.
Mind if I skip your last paragraph? Neither 150 years in the past nor 100 years in the future ; we have to deal with today. Let me ask you a question: What has caused the decline of American manhood??
It seems to me that the true cause is modern Western society's disproportionate and wickedly rationalized priority of "putting the children first." It's in play in no-fault divorce and child support laws that make fathers mere breadwinners and checkbooks, doom them to slavery and servitude, and give mothers authority for all discipline, while creating incentives for restless, dissatified women to divorce their husbands out of pure self-indulgence.
Once again, women with children who also have careers did not cause this mess. Whether they remain or are hounded away by self-righteous women who claim the moral highground in "putting the children first," their disappearing or continuing on the scene will not RESOLVE the "abdication of men."
Personally, I think making it very difficult for women to benefit financially by divorcing their husbands for "irreconcilable differences" (as opposed to abuse or infidelity), and by insisting that courts uphold for the men in such divorces their full rights as fathers in terms of discipline and authority, will go a long, long way to resolving this mess.
When boys grow up seeing their fathers treated like second-class slaves by the LAW -- divorce courts and child support laws -- you're guarandamnteed to have a generation of females predisposed to be ever unsatisfied with men, and a generation of males who are sorely tempted to abandon wholly the "gentleman" ethic. Be careful what you wish for when you complain that men are too "gentlemanly" to the Courics of this world. God has sent a gift in Palin -- a conservative politician not only in the right time at the right place, but of the right sex. Only another woman is on an equal playing field with the Courics, the Mitchels, the Sawyers, and the Oprahs. You'd better be damned well thankful for it rather than wishing for men who would have to abandon the gentleman ethic to defend themselves.
Would it have been any different had you chosen a different stay-at-home-versus-career path? I don't know which way you chose, and either way, I'm sure you chose properly and with the best conscience.
Here's the thing: a stay-at-home mom is every bit as equipped and capable of raising very seriously screwed-up kids as a working mom. Always has been, always will be. "Stay at home" moms on the farms, or on the frontier, had more work to do -- sewing, washing, mending, making their own soap, canning, gardening, etc. etc. etc. -- than most women employed full-time today outside the home.
This "stay at home" mom thing is completely a faddish trend of the last 60 years; it is not and has never been a "condition" of motherhood, and blaming such a relatively modern thing borne of the excess of conveniences for the timeless, perennial condition of domineering women creating wimpy men, is highly misguided.
Since I don't want to write a college blueblook essay, I'll decline on answering your inappropriate question, "What has caused the decline of American manhood?" If you've actually READ my posts, you'll see that TWICE I've offered my own humble opinion as to what has contributed greatly to it: no fault divorce and family law courts that enslave fathers financially while giving all disciplinarian authority of the kids to the mom. They are far from the only reasons, but I think they're a major contributor.
And at your own risk you ignore human history and reject the Biblical truth: There is nothing new under the sun. It would serve you better to review what life was like 100, 500, 1000 years ago if you want insight in THE TRUTH and to help fix what's wrong with today.
I guarantee you, there is NOTHING in societal moral malaise today, such as the decline of manhood, hasn't happened many, many, many times before in human history. That's why I think you're behaving with exceeding stupidity when you think looking 150 years in the past is a wasted effort. Anytime you deal with "today," you ARE dealing with the past -- and the future, should God decided to continue our paths toward it.
There is nothing new under the sun. Learn it, love it, APPLY IT.
WMD, for ex. I remember hearing him say "Bring it on"! and I said, way to go, GB! But the left gave him just a little flak, and the next day or so he made some muling criticism of his own words. All thru the 7 years following 9/11, and in the end he withheld any criticism of Hussein (Barry).
I loved Dubya and voted for him twice. I'll tell you what I think Dubya's problem was and is on that "passive" thing that drove both you and me nuts.
I think it runs in the Bush family's public persona, which becomes more sadly apparent with every passing day: They allow how they think others will perceive them to dictate their actions. Therefore, others are in control of them at all times. They want to be perceived as classy and above engaging in dispute because it would be in such bad taste.
You may argue, "Then isn't the same true for a man who wants to be perceived as a gentleman?" And as I grew up around virtually all men and love men and appreciate deeply that they are literally the sole defenders of women, I can safely say that a gentleman doesn't behave like a gentleman because he wants to be perceived as a gentleman. He behaves like a gentleman because he IS one.
I don't recall Dubya ever being disarmed or put on the spot by virtue of a female interviewer, such as Couric. I DO recall seeing HW being put there, and as Couric knew full well that HW's being of her own father's generation, would restrain himself. She played dirty.
If she plays that kind of "dirty" with any woman, whether it be the WWII generation's Nancy Reagan, or our own Baby Boomers Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton -- she will lose that fight every time.
It's an interesting dynamic. It's not a NEW dynamic, but it is a current one in American political culture, as opposed to the old days when men were the ones doing the interviews.
Putting the children first Is an illness. I want no part of it and I get irritated when my husband tries it.
I am not noble and I place no blame.
I am not self righteous.
I am, also doing reading on this subject!! Do you have sons?
Your final paragraph is not logical.
Where are the men? This does not answer it!! It just swerves around
Best regards!!
The Democrats can lie about Palin, make jokes about her and call her stupid in public. But in private, they are soiling themselves. There’s a hurricane coming ... There’s a hurricane alert ... It’s Hurricane Sarah and it’s storming the nation!
Certainly the courts have done great damage to men & they have a history of doing it maybe forever. And there are more women on the bench now, too. You would think that some of them would strive to be fair...maybe they do try, but are immediately attacked by the Feminist mob. The courts are still just a part of the overall Leftist agenda. The left must break up the family because that is the last bastion of freedom.
You quote Ezekial, there is nothing new under the sun. (the nature of mankind). There are some life and death situations ongoing that are "new" in the recorded history of civilizations. When did a nation under attack ever side with the attackers, let them set up orgs to demand their religion become our law, aid & abet them to physically attack us and then deny their motivation? When did both President, SecDef & Military leaders enforce ROE that lead to our soldiers' deaths? How far back would you go to find such a nation? Don't waste your time trying to answer, you won't find it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.